Witte

Witte v. Kaufman

Good Law

141 Cal. App. 4th 1201·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1184·2006 Daily Journal DAR 10079·46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 845·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7029

Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 1, 2006C049472California4,276 words

Opinion

Hull, J.

Plaintiff appeals from several orders of the trial court granting defendants’ special motions to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (strategic lawsuit against public participation) (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16; further undesignated section references are to the Code of Civil Procedure) and awarding defendants attorney fees. We conclude the court properly granted the anti-SLAPP motions but erred in the award of attorney fees. We reverse in part and remand for reconsideration of the motions for attorney fees.

Facts and Proceedings

Marven Stroh hired the law firm of Knox, Lemmon & Anapolsky (KLA) to represent him in a lawsuit against his brother, Douglas Stroh, for dissolution of their business partnership. On August 31, 2001, KLA filed a complaint on behalf of Marven Stroh against Douglas Stroh in Sacramento County Superior Court (Stroh v. Stroh No. 01AS05353). Douglas Stroh hired attorney James Kaufman to represent him in the action.

In April 2003, KLA withdrew as attorney of record for Marven Stroh due to nonpayment of fees. On April 18, 2003, KLA filed suit against Marven Stroh in Sacramento County Superior Court (KLA v. Stroh, No. 03AS02197), seeking unpaid legal fees…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.